A american guy was shown on german tv stating that were not enough guns in Denver! If more people in the cinema would have had a gun, they could have easily killed the attacker with their own weapons, resulting in far less victims.

As long as people all over the world think along these lines, nothing ever will change, i'm afraid.

Sad but true, and very politicised and so divisive that many people simply cannot have a sensible mature conversation about it.

Quote:

People who do "home invasions" are not deterred by locks, bars, etc. I am not talking about your average burglary, I am talking about where they are intent on taking over the home with the people inside.

Like an armed squatter.? A self created hostage situation.? This makes no sense - but that's criminals for you. The vast majority of "burglaries" in the UK are committed when people are not in, and home and content insurance is void if you left windows and doors open, this I am sure has reduced the number of burglaries in the UK.

Quote:

Blaming the homicide rate on guns is not accurate IMO. The makeup of US society, with the legacy of slavery in the US, the free-flow of illegal Mexican immigrations, etc, distorts the numbers. The homicide rate in the US varies significantly depending on where one is located.

I know that there in a strong but non-uniform trend that the more religious the State's inhabitants the higher the murder rate is. Could you get some official statistics to show how the murder rate is affected by ethnicity.

Quote:

What about is there was a security guard or police officer in the theater with a gun? As silly as it may seem to you, in locations where people are allowed (with proper registration and license) to carry firearms in their car, people are much less likely to be killed during a car high-jacking, simply because it is too risky for the hijackers if there is reasonable chance that the owner has a gun.

Do you have any statistics.?

Quote:

I believe that the perpetrator was on the stage, or at least at the front of the theater near the screen. I am not saying that no one would have been killed, but the death toll would have been significantly reduced, or maybe it would not have been attempted at all if the perpetrator knew their were armed guards in the theater. The problem is that people in the US are too cheap to pay for security.

So you are saying that because there are so many guns available to anyone that everyone should therefore have a gun to protect themselves and/or that there should be armed guards everywhere.

How is this situation NOT "an arms race".? In the UK we don't have an arms race. In 2009 there were 6,868 armed police officers in the UK (excluding NI) out of a total of about 140,000 police officers and we still have 1/3rd of the murder rate of America.

Blaming the homicide rate on guns is not accurate IMO. The makeup of US society, with the legacy of slavery in the US, the free-flow of illegal Mexican immigrations, etc, distorts the numbers. The homicide rate in the US varies significantly depending on where one is located.

Sure, but the homicide rate reported a few posts above refers to a nationwide average data. I'm sure that in the rural Montana there will be a ridicolous number of homicides per year, but the point is that US rate is high even on an average value and not only considering TX, CA (or other States sharing a border with Mexico). Detroit and Washington, just for reporting two cities I already visited a few times, have a pretty high homicide rate and are quite far from the border. I wouldn't walk alone after noon in Newark itself.However it would be interesting to see the homicide rate for every type of crime and race.

m0002a wrote:

Nevertheless, even if it would be best if guns were not a part of American society, there is no way to turn back the clock and start over again. In America, people take laws and the constitution seriously and not as something that can be explained away as being "200+ years old".[CUT]

As you explained later in the post, this has its flaws and its advantages. If such a delicate matter would be faced with carefulness by people and politicans, I think that some small Constitution changements wouldn't hurt. Unfortunately, given the tough times we are living in, I understand that this isn't the right moment to do this.

Sure, but the homicide rate reported a few posts above refers to a nationwide average data. I'm sure that in the rural Montana there will be a ridicolous number of homicides per year, but the point is that US rate is high even on an average value and not only considering TX, CA (or other States sharing a border with Mexico). Detroit and Washington, just for reporting two cities I already visited a few times, have a pretty high homicide rate and are quite far from the border. I wouldn't walk alone after noon in Newark itself.However it would be interesting to see the homicide rate for every type of crime and race.

I think you have a very distorted view of the US. Although Montana has a very high percentage of gun owners, its homicide rate is rather low. Montana has a very low percentage of ethnic minorities:

Also, you forgot what I said about the residual results of slavery and racial discrimination in the US, and its creation of an under-class where crime rates are still very high (as you mentioned, Detroit, Wash DC, Newark, etc). Immigrants from Mexico have moved throughout the US (like African Americans), not just in border states, although their relative percentages might be higher in the border states.

Last edited by m0002a on Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

So you are saying that because there are so many guns available to anyone that everyone should therefore have a gun to protect themselves and/or that there should be armed guards everywhere.

How is this situation NOT "an arms race".? In the UK we don't have an arms race. In 2009 there were 6,868 armed police officers in the UK (excluding NI) out of a total of about 140,000 police officers and we still have 1/3rd of the murder rate of America.

Please refer to point number 3, the American Psyche and murder.

Andy

Given that the Constitution of the United States allows citizens the right to bear arms (obviously not a right in the UK), there is no way guns can be completely removed from our society unless the constitution is changed (which requires much more than a simple majority to approve a change). Blaming this on the American Psyche is hyperbole and demagoguery.

You can call it an arms race if you want to, but from a practical standpoint having proper security is necessary given the situation we are in. Prior to 9/11 I was in the UK several times and was amazed at the level of security in your airports, which far exceeded that of the US at the time. I don't blame that on the British Psyche, I assume they had good reason to have such high security.

BTW, if King George III had not been such a tyrant against the colonists in America, the 2nd amendment might never have been included in the US constitution. Also, it was the British who started slavery in the New World, which is still the cause of a major part of US crime and homocides. So I am blaming you for all of this, and expect you to repent for the sins of your ancestors.

I think you have a very distorted view of the US. Although Montana has a very high percentage of gun owners, its homicide rate is rather low. Montana has a very low percentage of ethnic minorities:

Montana is also one of the least religious states - that correlation should also be noted - please see the embedded image.

Just out of curiosity, could you spend a little time pointing out a few of the states on that list that are at the top of the graph and at the bottom that do / don't have large proportions of blacks and Hispanics as I don't know my way around the US map as well as you do. It would be very interesting to see if your suggestion fits in well with that graph.

Quote:

Given that the Constitution of the United States allows citizens the right to bear arms (obviously not a right in the UK), there is no way guns can be completely removed from our society unless the constitution is changed (which requires much more than a simple majority to approve a change)

Most of the rest of the world, including my fellow citizens of the UK simply do not understand why the Constitution cannot be changed, it has already been changed several times by way of "amendments".

Quote:

Blaming this on the American Psyche is hyperbole and demagoguery.

Why would you suggest that it is wrong without giving any actual answer to the contrary. You seem to give some credible arguments for Black / Hispanic people acting a disproportionally deadly toll on the US population, but this still does not seem to fully add up - a stronger argument and some statistics that I have asked for above would add more weight to your argument.

Quote:

You can call it an arms race if you want to, but from a practical standpoint having proper security is necessary given the situation we are in.

Proper security comes in many forms, such as nuclear weapons, well trained and well armed military and the police. Any country that does not at the least have a good well organised and effective police force is simply asking for trouble in the same way that someone who goes to work leaving an empty house with windows open and doors unlocked is looking to be burgled.

Quote:

Prior to 9/11 I was in the UK several times and was amazed at the level of security in your airports, which far exceeded that of the US at the time. I don't blame that on the British Psyche, I assume they had good reason to have such high security.

Yes, decades of Irish terrorists funded by people in the north east of the US made that a necessity - some people simply don't realise that Terrorism existed before the 11th of September 2001. Airport security has been needed in the UK for a very long time as Heathrow used to be the busiest airport in the world with a great number of inter-connecting flights and international flights from places such as Iran to the US - they usually stop off in London to refuel.

Quote:

BTW, if King George III had not been such a tyrant against the colonists in America, the 2nd amendment might never have been included in the US constitution.

I don't disagree with you, the man was a dick of the highest order.

Quote:

Also, it was the British who started slavery in the New World, which is still the cause of a major part of US crime and homicides.

I thought it was the Portuguese who started the African Slave Trade in 1444, but I stand to be corrected by verified information.

Quote:

So I am blaming you for all of this, and expect you to repent for the sins of your ancestors.

I feel rather privileged to be an Athiest, so I don't recognise "sin" in any form, and I do not and will not appologise for what someone else has done, be they an ancestor of mine or not. But I know you are joking anyway

Notes:1. These stats include suicides, which are probalby higher for White, non-Hispanic. This explains why they are higher than rates shown above in a different post. "WISQARS Fatal provides injury mortality data by cause (e.g., firearm, poisoning, or suffocation) and manner of death (e.g., suicide, homicide, or unintentional injury). Mortality data originate from the CDC National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). NVSS collects death certificate data filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data in this report were based on homicides caused by any mechanism."2. Stats are for ethnicity of victums, not the perpetrators. The rate of Hispanics or Black killing Whites is much higher than the opposite.

I think you have a very distorted view of the US. Although Montana has a very high percentage of gun owners, its homicide rate is rather low. CUT...

Sorry. I clearly meant to write "ridiculously low" compared to DC or Detroit, and ended up writing "ridicolous". Of course crimes are more common in metropolitan areas than in inner rual and less populated states. I still wouldn't leave my house door opened in the beautiful and calm Iowa, though.

m0002a wrote:

Also, you forgot what I said about the residual results of slavery and racial discrimination in the US, and its creation of an under-class where crime rates are still very high (as you mentioned, Detroit, Wash DC, Newark, etc). Immigrants from Mexico have moved throughout the US (like African Americans), not just in border states, although their relative percentages might be higher in the border states.

Short story long, there's a higher homicide rate compared to other western countries... there's clearly something wrong. Arguing that something in a 2 centuries Constitution should be changed doesn't mean that one is blaming Constitution, and it's not really necessary to come to Hitler and Mussolini.A (partial?) gun banning wouldn't prevent criminals to find a gun somewhere (even if it would be harder for them), but we can't deny that the global homicide rate would gain a benefit.

Montana is also one of the least religious states - that correlation should also be noted - please see the embedded image.

Just out of curiosity, could you spend a little time pointing out a few of the states on that list that are at the top of the graph and at the bottom that do / don't have large proportions of blacks and Hispanics as I don't know my way around the US map as well as you do. It would be very interesting to see if your suggestion fits in well with that graph.

Andy

According to the website you referenced, Montana, Arizona, and Wyoming are considered to be "Less Religious". Interesting that these 3 states are extremely conservative and very strongly support the 2nd amendment. I think it probably has to do mostly with the rural nature of their society, and less dependence on organized religion in their daily lives. One can be very spiritual, and even a faithful believer in a religion, without it being a part of ones daily life since their society is more rural.http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state ... ion.aspx#2

I am not sure there is much to be made of the correlation between religiousness and homicide rates. One of the paradoxes of African Americans is that they as a whole are very religious and law-abidding, but certain elements of the their ethnic group (who are probably not so religious) commit a very large number of homicides. To say that the religious Afro-Americans are the ones committing crimes is probably wrong. Same with Hispanics, who mostly are very religious Catholics. I personally have no ax to grind here, since I myself do not belong to any religion.

The states with the highest homicide rates are the ones with the largest ethnic minorities (non-White). This can be Black, Hispanic, or Native Americans. The exception is Asian-Americans, who also have a low homocide rate (often less than whites). It is a little difficult to analyze the numbers by state, for example there is a vast difference between the city of Detroit Michigan, and the rest of Michigan, which is not evident in statewide statistics.

What about is there was a security guard or police officer in the theater with a gun? As silly as it may seem to you, in locations where people are allowed (with proper registration and license) to carry firearms in their car, people are much less likely to be killed during a car high-jacking, simply because it is too risky for the hijackers if there is reasonable chance that the owner has a gun.

Ja, you come out with the old "if my counterpart has more fear than i have, he will not attack me". Doesn't work everywhere and in any situation. No general solution.

m0002a wrote:

It "might" be best to do away with all guns the US, but that is not possible under the US Constitution and because of our history. The right to bear arms (and separately) the right to raise state militias, was specifically instituted to protect citizens against their own government from encroaching on their rights under the Constitution. That is why no German blood has ever been spilled on US soil to rid the world of a horrible dictator, the personification of evil itself. It is not just a coincidence that it never happened and will never happen, but has indeed happened the other way around.

Your past is the reason for you as american citizen not being smart enough to see when something has to be changed because time has changed? And my past has something to do with blood beeing shed on US soil?

Sorry if i misinterpret, but i have to disagree. And i probably will not answer any further. The part with german blood makes me think your another kind of racist. As far as i have understood, you well transport the attitude to be greater than everyone, simply because you call your self American.

Short story long, there's a higher homicide rate compared to other western countries... there's clearly something wrong. Arguing that something in a 2 centuries Constitution should be changed doesn't mean that one is blaming Constitution, and it's not really necessary to come to Hitler and Mussolini.

If you think there is something wrong with the US, you have a right to your opinion. There are lots of things wrong with every country.

However it is most definitely necessary to mention Hitler and Mussolini, since the barbaric Americans shed their blood on your soil to rid the world of them. You should ask yourself how it was possible for them to come to power in your country. The Americans decided in 1791 (rightly or wrongly) that they would give citizens the right bear arms specifically to prevent that kind of thing from happening in the US. There is a big price to pay for the 2nd Amendment (as we found out in Colorado recently), but things are not as simplistic as you make them out to be.

Your past is the reason for you as american citizen not being smart enough to see when something has to be changed because time has changed? And my past has something to do with blood beeing shed on US soil?

Sorry if i misinterpret, but i have to disagree. And i probably will not answer any further. The part with german blood makes me think your another kind of racist. As far as i have understood, you well transport the attitude to be greater than everyone, simply because you call your self American.

I understand that English is not your native language, but I suggest you get some help in translating what I said before you make any other comments.

I agree. I always like to expose the flaws of my homeland, let alone how a dictator could have risen to power (note that the Constitution has changed after WWII, and I guess the same happened in Germany, too). However, in this specific thread we're dealing with a particular argument.

m0002a wrote:

However it is most definitely necessary to mention Hitler and Mussolini, since the barbaric Americans shed their blood on your soil to rid the world of them. You should ask yourself how it was possible for them to come to power in your country. The Americans decided in 1791 (rightly or wrongly) that they would give citizens the right bear arms specifically to prevent that kind of thing from happening in the US. There is a big price to pay for the 2nd Amendment (as we found out in Colorado recently), but things are not as simplistic as you make them out to be.

At this point, we've expressed our point of views. I understand that it's not an easy matter to discuss, let alone on a forum. It always turns to be an endless loop even in real life discussions, especially when it comes to the Hitler and Mussolini thing VS some flaws of the American way of concerning things such as Constitution.

Thanks for that. Pretty stark differences between ethnicity's. We have a similar problem here in the UK, not at all helped by the fact that the population of Blacks and Asians (typically from the Indian sub-continent vs east-Asia) are generally rooted into large cities instead of being uniformly spread throughout the land which would no-doubt make the differences disappear overnight.

Below are 2 Wiki links.

One to official crime and prison statistics by ethnicity, and the other is the 2001 census that shows population ethnicity by percentage. The number don't lie - hence this is not a racist point, it is simply fact.

The numbers roughly equate to 2% of the population is Black, and 95% White, with 72% of the prison population White and 13.7% Black, these are shocking figures.

According to the site listed below (and my counting skills), 26 of the teenagers murdered in London since 2005 where White, out of a tally of 140 that is pretty shocking even considering that London's White native population is now only about 50% - also note that the vast majority of these murders were committed by Black persons, who were it should also be noted nearly all Male, and nearly all under the age of 30.

Your past is the reason for you as american citizen not being smart enough to see when something has to be changed because time has changed? And my past has something to do with blood beeing shed on US soil?

Sorry if i misinterpret, but i have to disagree. And i probably will not answer any further. The part with german blood makes me think your another kind of racist. As far as i have understood, you well transport the attitude to be greater than everyone, simply because you call your self American.

I understand that English is not your native language, but I suggest you get some help in translating what I said before you make any other comments.

I'm reminded by this thread of a recent shooting near me that has now been classed as murder.

I live in rural Wiltshire, one of the safest places to be in the UK. It's relatively well off and has returned a Conservative MP since 1924. There is very little crime and when something does happen, it generally is big news. A few weeks ago there was the first murder for about 10 years:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-18968653

A local solicitor was shot in his office by a disgruntled landowner set on revenge over a legal dispute.

Clearly the murderer was not in the right mind when he took this action and their are issues with the gun he had. While shotguns are common amongst gamekeepers and farmers, their are very tight controls and not all weapons are legally held unfortunately.

What would slacker gun controls have done in this case? Allowing the murdered to have the gun legally would not help and with the gun illegally held he was already running quite a risk, a chance police check would already have found the weapon and stopped it happening. If the weapon could have been held legally and the police had done a check, he'd have been OK to keep his weapon and any chance of stopping this would have been lost. What if the solicitor had been allowed to hold a weapon? So imagine yourself sat at your desk working away, you're not exactly in a position to defend yourself and someone bursting into your office with a shotgun isn't what you expect exactly is it? What if someone else in the office or outside had a gun on them? What's the chance of a massive gun battle opening up and more deaths being caused? And when you live in such a safe area, carrying a gun round to protect yourself isn't exactly first priority is it? This is a freak event, no looser controls would have helped this in any way.

Neither of you two are to blame for anything that your respective countries have done in the past, so please stop bashing each others countries before this thread is permanently locked - which none of us wants to see.

Good point "edh", sadly the man died from his injuries yesterday having been in hospital for the last 3-weeks.

I totally agree with you that cases like this are practically unstoppable, if someone intent on murder and with a bit of planning and time can and will get hold of a lethal weapon such as what happened in this case.

But that very point makes a huge amount of difference, people need to go out of their way to get a gun in the UK, this in itself will I am sure put a great number of people off of a planned murder such as this case. With that extra time to reflect on the situation, most people will calm down and choose not to commit murder - that is obviously not the same in the US, where almost anyone can legally buy a gun, they just need to wait a few weeks, or drop into a gun-mart and walk out with one, or simply buy one illegally or steal one of the millions of guns in circulation - the time to reflect has diminished greatly, and may even help someone to make up their mind to commit murder as they might be able to acquire a gun within 24 hours.

Neither of you two are to blame for anything that your respective countries have done in the past, so please stop bashing each others countries before this thread is permanently locked - which none of us wants to see.

Andy

I didn't blame Pappnaas for anything his country did in the past. I was pointing out that 2nd amendment of the US Constitution prevents the kind of abuse of power that Hitler, Mussolini (and Stalin) inflicted on the world. Those in the US have to bear the burden of the adverse effects of the 2nd amendment, even though many others in the world have benefited from it.

As a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless acts of violence perpetrated on July 20, 2012, in Aurora, Colorado, by the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, July 25, 2012. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

I was pointing out that 2nd amendment of the US Constitution prevents the kind of abuse of power that Hitler, Mussolini (and Stalin) inflicted on the world. Those in the US have to bear the burden of the adverse effects of the 2nd amendment, even though many others in the world have benefited from it.

You think no other country has controls that stop such a thing? We have the Queen. Consistutional monarchy works wonders, you should try it.

The Weimar Republic for one was conceived to be the most democratic system in the world, where this failed was that with the economic strife of 1919-1933 in Germany it was very easy by the proportional representative system for weak governments to form and extremist groups such as the Nazis and communists to be represented. At the time communism was considered more of a threat than Fascism by the West and there was a certain level of complacency in what happened. The Nazis were also a populist movement, there's no way that the slack gun controls you propose as a means of controlling extremism would have succeeded because they were very popular at the time. They brought economic prosperity back to Germany but only due to an expansionist empire forming view that fits in somewhere close to a Ponzi scheme - You borrow against the future and assume that in the future you will conquer to recoup your expenditure.

You think no other country has controls that stop such a thing? We have the Queen. Consistutional monarchy works wonders, you should try it.

The Weimar Republic for one was conceived to be the most democratic system in the world, where this failed was that with the economic strife of 1919-1933 in Germany it was very easy by the proportional representative system for weak governments to form and extremist groups such as the Nazis and communists to be represented. At the time communism was considered more of a threat than Fascism by the West and there was a certain level of complacency in what happened. The Nazis were also a populist movement, there's no way that the slack gun controls you propose as a means of controlling extremism would have succeeded because they were very popular at the time. They brought economic prosperity back to Germany but only due to an expansionist empire forming view that fits in somewhere close to a Ponzi scheme - You borrow against the future and assume that in the future you will conquer to recoup your expenditure.

As I mentioned, the Founders created the 2nd amendment because of their experience with King George III. Rightly or wrongly, they thought that the right to bear arms protected the people from dictatorships (as was obviously the case with King George III).

I did not mean to suggest that communists or Nazi's cannot get elected in the US (although it might be much harder to get elected president of the US due to the Electoral College). What the right to bear arms does is help prevent a duly elected government from declaring itself as dictator and abandoning all future elections, as was the case with Hitler and others. An uprising of the people against such tyranny is pretty difficult if the citizens have no arms. Now I realize that many think such things are not necessary anymore, but that is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is what the 2nd amendment says, and what the steps required to change it if enough people wanted to.

Regarding your comments about the Queen, I already mentioned King George III, against whom the United States fought 2 wars (American Revolutionary War and The War of 1812). Based on that experience, I am not so impressed. I doubt that many of the other former British colonies who were not allowed to bear arms by their colonial masters are impressed either.

I did not mean to suggest that communists or Nazi's cannot get elected in the US (although it might be much harder to get elected president of the US due to the Electoral College). What the right to bear arms does is help prevent a duly elected government from declaring itself as dictator and abandoning all future elections, as was the case with Hitler and others.

What evidence is there that the German people were against Hitler seizing control of the presidentship upon the death of Hindenburg? There is no reason to assume that they were unhappy. As I said, The Nazi's were a populist movement and were able to satisfy their peoples want for prosperity in the years leading up to the Second World War. If they'd had weapons, they wouldn't have rebelled as you suggest. Dictatorships frequently start out as being popular and once you instill nationalism in people and unite them against external enemies you can hold power easily. Your second ammendment is irrelevant in this.

m0002a wrote:

Regarding your comments about the Queen, I already mentioned King George III, against whom the United States fought 2 wars (American Revolutionary War and The War of 1812). Based on that experience, I am not so impressed. I doubt that many of the other former British colonies who were not allowed to bear arms by their colonial masters are impressed either.

Your assumption that George III was some sort of tyrant is incorrect. He was not the absolute monarch that you make out, this hasn't been the case since the time of Cromwell - we tried without a Monarchy, Christmas was illegal, life was rubbish, we brought back his son on the throne on certain conditions, life was mostly OK, we refined things over time so that the King's powers were restricted but he still had his place.

George III kings condition (porphyria) and the near-power struggle with his son George IV who also wanted to marry a Catholic became poilitical with the Tory's (Pitt the younger) on one side and the Whig's (Fox) on the other. This was a difficult era for goverment in the UK but the King was most definitely not a tyrant.

Was the war of 1812(-1815) that popular in the UK? No. It was so unpopular it actually led to the assasination of Spencer Perceval, the only UK prime minister to die in such a fashion despite us not having your second amendment allowing the bearing of Arms. John Bellingham was rightfully charged with murder and hung. He did not need to be assasinated though as he was actually on his way at the time to an inquiry about his unpopular tade policies and the likelihood was that the policies would have been reversed anyway as a minimum and him leaving government.

It is also in the reign of George III that we beat Napoleon who was leading a country of 35 million when the UK (including all of Ireland pre-1922) was only 7 million, saving many countries in Europe from the same kind of militaristic tyranny that you believe only your second amendment allows you to do.

Anyway, any comparison with our current state of government on what it was pre-1832 is irrelevent as we've had the 1832 reform act and then many others.

I don't see how it is possible that the 2nd amendment would have stopped Hitlers rise to power at all.

Bear in mind that he had his very own militia that ended up being as strong as the German national army, the militia started off as violent political activists for what would become the Nazi Party, they were known as "The Brown Shirts", they evolved into the SS, with military training and 1-million strong, this is exactly what the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and form militia could turn into - although this is very unlikely to happen as things usually go pear-shaped long before then, look at the nutters at "Waco"

Subject change.

One of the single best things about the "Constitutional Monarchy" that we have in the UK is that the commander of the armed forces is the King/Queen of the day as well as the head of state, however the King/Queen of the day does not and cannot get involved in politics. The monarch can disband government and call a general election if the government of the day fails. This system gives a very sensible "lock" so that the government can never get out of control, militia's cannot exist, and the King/Queen cannot overthrow the government and the government cannot remove the monarch as the armed forces swear allegiance with the monarch.

The fact that our "Constitutional Monarchy" has been running since 1688 and has now been refined to the point of absolute stability shows that it works very well. We do not have a President, we have no need for one and few people want one, after all you might just end up with someone who makes your whole country look bad - which as the head of state is not a good thing.

What evidence is there that the German people were against Hitler seizing control of the presidentship upon the death of Hindenburg? There is no reason to assume that they were unhappy. As I said, The Nazi's were a populist movement and were able to satisfy their peoples want for prosperity in the years leading up to the Second World War. If they'd had weapons, they wouldn't have rebelled as you suggest. Dictatorships frequently start out as being popular and once you instill nationalism in people and unite them against external enemies you can hold power easily. Your second ammendment is irrelevant in this.

Your assumption that George III was some sort of tyrant is incorrect. He was not the absolute monarch that you make out, this hasn't been the case since the time of Cromwell - we tried without a Monarchy, Christmas was illegal, life was rubbish, we brought back his son on the throne on certain conditions, life was mostly OK, we refined things over time so that the King's powers were restricted but he still had his place.

George III kings condition (porphyria) and the near-power struggle with his son George IV who also wanted to marry a Catholic became poilitical with the Tory's (Pitt the younger) on one side and the Whig's (Fox) on the other. This was a difficult era for goverment in the UK but the King was most definitely not a tyrant.

Was the war of 1812(-1815) that popular in the UK? No. It was so unpopular it actually led to the assasination of Spencer Perceval, the only UK prime minister to die in such a fashion despite us not having your second amendment allowing the bearing of Arms. John Bellingham was rightfully charged with murder and hung. He did not need to be assasinated though as he was actually on his way at the time to an inquiry about his unpopular tade policies and the likelihood was that the policies would have been reversed anyway as a minimum and him leaving government.

It is also in the reign of George III that we beat Napoleon who was leading a country of 35 million when the UK (including all of Ireland pre-1922) was only 7 million, saving many countries in Europe from the same kind of militaristic tyranny that you believe only your second amendment allows you to do.

Anyway, any comparison with our current state of government on what it was pre-1832 is irrelevent as we've had the 1832 reform act and then many others.

George III may not have been a tyrant to those at home, but he was certainly was that to the colonists in the New World.

The Founders theorized that popular uprisings against tyrannical governments are much less likely if the government can legally disarm the population. Whether or not that would have worked in every case is doubtful, but it probably has a fair amount of validity, even in recent history (Arab Spring, for example). Regardless of whether you believe that or not, that is what they theorized in 1791 and that is why the 2nd amendment exists.

It is fairly difficult to change the US constitution, and such changes typically take years to be ratified (by three-fourths of states or by a Constitution Convention). At no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (other than to make his opinion known). The US President cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification, as is made clear in Article 5. So that is another reason why even a wildly popular tyrant like Hitler could not suspend other parts of the US Constitution such as elections, limited powers of the federal government, etc.

However, once a precedent is set that the constitution can be ignored (without changing it) by "interpreting it away," (such as interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean something other than what it actually says), then it is a much shorter step to interpreting the rest of the constitution away if a wildly popular tyrant happens to be elected and wants to be declared dictator.

Regarding the merits of a constitutional monarchy, if you prefer that form of government I have no objections, and it basically is none of my business, since I am not a citizen or even a resident of your country. Most Americans (myself included) prefer the form of government and the Constitution we have in the USA. Hopefully, at long last, you will allow us the luxury of deciding that for ourselves.

Neither of you two are to blame for anything that your respective countries have done in the past, so please stop bashing each others countries before this thread is permanently locked - which none of us wants to see.

Andy

I didn't blame Pappnaas for anything his country did in the past. I was pointing out that 2nd amendment of the US Constitution prevents the kind of abuse of power that Hitler, Mussolini (and Stalin) inflicted on the world. Those in the US have to bear the burden of the adverse effects of the 2nd amendment, even though many others in the world have benefited from it.

You have the right to think what you want.

You have absolutly no right whatsoever as an american citizen to tell "the germans" how to react and behave.

I have fought actively Neo-Nazis here in germany, because they still exist. I have fought actively any kind of racism. Even arrogance is some kind of racism. I entered this thread stating something and got answered with this american blood crap simply because there's "germany" stated at my location. m0002a, did you actively fight anything your ancestors wronged in the past? Or are you just profiting off of things someone else did in the past? You know nothing about me and the things i've seen and done.

Don't come telling me what we have to and have not to do because of things lying in the past more than 50 years ago. Specially when argueing that the same past elevates you americans to a higher ground.

Andy: I will stop posting in here as long as americans tell germans what to do because we lost the war 50 years ago. I agree to disagree with m0002a, i think he lives in his own "America-is-the-only-light-in-all-the-dark-world"attitude and think about going the ces-route.

What evidence is there that the German people were against Hitler seizing control of the presidentship upon the death of Hindenburg? There is no reason to assume that they were unhappy. As I said, The Nazi's were a populist movement and were able to satisfy their peoples want for prosperity in the years leading up to the Second World War. If they'd had weapons, they wouldn't have rebelled as you suggest. Dictatorships frequently start out as being popular and once you instill nationalism in people and unite them against external enemies you can hold power easily. Your second ammendment is irrelevant in this.

Gotcha. The same applied under Fascism, where you could see big crowds supporting Mussolini and hoping for "a place under the Sun" referring to the newly conquered african and south-european colonies.Nonethless Mussolini was seen as a friend by America, because they hoped that he could have stopped Hitler from declaring war on Poland. I've seen with my eyes "Balbo Avenue" and an old Ostia column Mussolini gave to the city of Chicago. They're still there.Nobody but a few people tried to take arms against one of those dictatorships because, as edh pointed out, such things DO NOT happen under a populist (and crazy) movement. Somebody definied such thing as a "collective craziness".I really hope the US will never face a possible dictatorship (actually it will never happen in the near future in our western emisphere), because your "right to bear arms" won't help you, my friend.

George III may not have been a tyrant to those at home, but he was certainly was that to the colonists in the New World.

Note how there was only the New Englanders fighting for independence at this stage, no other colonies revolted at this time and Canada remains part of the Commonwealth today. So it was not universal to the colonies, just the 13 states that went on to form the US. You can't universally blame George III for this as he was only a constitutional monarch, the politicians of the time operating in the difficult times that they were in were those who took the fiscal and militiary decisions, these would be your 'tyrants'. I think we can also claim a level of success in that the British monarch is head of still head of state in 16 countries. Only the monarchy of Denmark and the Netherlands can claim similar feats. Spain lost all of it's colonies through independence struggles whereas we peacefully held many, the big exceptions being India and the US.

m0002a wrote:

The Founders theorized that popular uprisings against tyrannical governments are much less likely if the government can legally disarm the population. Whether or not that would have worked in every case is doubtful, but it probably has a fair amount of validity, even in recent history (Arab Spring, for example). Regardless of whether you believe that or not, that is what they theorized in 1791 and that is why the 2nd amendment exists.

So you're saying it's correct or not? Clearly most countries of the world don't have one but have had many changes of government within this time. With the exception of the US civil war the US has had a very calm political history. Surely if you believe the 2nd amendment as a requirement then no other country would have been able to revolt at any time. Or maybe your 2nd amendment does help in that it allows you to have such a high rate of political assasinations? With the Arab Spring as an example in Lybia and Syria those weapons were all illegally held and had to be smuggled in. They got rid of their leaderships without a 2nd amendment.

m0002a wrote:

It is fairly difficult to change the US constitution, and such changes typically take years to be ratified (by three-fourths of states or by a Constitution Convention). At no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (other than to make his opinion known). The US President cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification, as is made clear in Article 5.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (Wills and Kate) might want to have children and there's ~50% chance of them having a daughter. Under our current rules of succession a daughter would not be next in line to the throne and in the modern era this isn't really acceptable so there is some interest in changing this. Forget about your constitution as being difficult to change, changing the rules of succession of the British throne is MUCH harder because it needs the agreement of all 16 of the commonwealth realms with an act passed in each. It hasn't come up as a serious issue for some time although was mentioned when Charles and Diana married but with the birth of William fell away again. An MP did raise it in the late 90's again but it was shelved as just being too difficult to do until there is a need.

m0002a wrote:

So that is another reason why even a wildly popular tyrant like Hitler could not suspend other parts of the US Constitution such as elections, limited powers of the federal government, etc.

Again, the Weimar republic had all of these things and the Nazis got rid of them. An example of how was burning down the Reichstag, blaming it on a man with learning difficulties, then reconvening government in an Opera House covered in Swastikas and surrounded by SA (not SS, the SS were later) to dissuade those who didn't agree with them from coming in. In addition the Weimar republic had given rise to some very weak, ineffective, unpopular governments so many people were only too happy for it's freedoms to be eroded.

m0002a wrote:

Most Americans (myself included) prefer the form of government and the Constitution we have in the USA. Hopefully, at long last, you will allow us the luxury of deciding that for ourselves.

I would actually say you don't have the luxury of deciding it for yourself. Instead it is brainwashed into you as the American way in which your president is reverred as a king (you even have special crimes specifically applicable to harming your president, very simialr to old fashioned treason laws we have), the US as being the ultimate democracy and the insitutions of your country as being holy. I notice you capitalise the f in 'Founders'. As a serious point is this something you are taught in school? Traditionally this happens when naming those considered device, ie God, kings, queens, when using He, Him, Her to refer to them as well.

You have absolutly no right whatsoever as an american citizen to tell "the germans" how to react and behave.

I have fought actively Neo-Nazis here in germany, because they still exist. I have fought actively any kind of racism. Even arrogance is some kind of racism. I entered this thread stating something and got answered with this american blood crap simply because there's "germany" stated at my location. m0002a, did you actively fight anything your ancestors wronged in the past? Or are you just profiting off of things someone else did in the past? You know nothing about me and the things i've seen and done.

Don't come telling me what we have to and have not to do because of things lying in the past more than 50 years ago. Specially when argueing that the same past elevates you americans to a higher ground.

Andy: I will stop posting in here as long as americans tell germans what to do because we lost the war 50 years ago. I agree to disagree with m0002a, i think he lives in his own "America-is-the-only-light-in-all-the-dark-world"attitude and think about going the ces-route.

Since when did I tell Germans how to react and behave? You seem to be a bit paranoid. At no time did I ever confuse you with a fascist, in fact it is rather obvious (from you post above about American "Bombing") that you are socialist.

I did point out that a lot of American blood was spilled on foreign shores riding the world of Hitler. Same happened in WWI. I am not so naive as to suppose that Americans are better than anyone else (since after all, we are fairly recent descendants of British, German, French, Italian, African, Russian, Mexican, etc, bloodlines), but I do believe that our Constitution helps prevent a lot of the things that have happened elsewhere when dictators suspend elections and take away the people's freedoms and rights, such as those defined under the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments of the US Constitution). Without the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, the USA is just another Banana Republic.

Along with the US Constitution, comes the burden of accepting its provisions, and only changing it lawfully via amendments, and not merely ignoring its provisions or interpreting it away into something other than what it actually says, and other than what the Founders intended.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum